jrs-8 Reviews

Student Bodies (1981)

Starts with a bang - Ends with a whimper

[2/10 · 28 August 2006]

"Student Bodies" came out at the height of the mad slasher craze with high expectations. The timing couldn't have been better as it seemed there was a new low budget horror film opening every other week. "Student Bodies" seemed like a welcome refresher as the genre was ripe for parody.

Sad to say but "Student Bodies" is a dead fish of a comedy after a strong first ten minutes which do illicit some genuine laughs. After that the jokes become obvious and tedious which comes as a surprise since writer/director Mickey Rose had collaborated with Woody Allen on some of his early work. The real sign that this is a stinker is that acclaimed director Michael Ritchie took on the role of producer here and had his name removed from the finished product. Yes, Alan Smithee became a producer for a time.

Mr. Ritchie knew of the stench he was part of and wisely distanced himself. The cast is a cross of no talent stiffs crossed with people that appear to have been cast from the circus. Apparently Rose thought just the sight of a man with long arms and legs (credited as "The Stick") was funny enough.

Audiences apparently agreed as the film would bomb after a strong opening weekend before the reviews made the Monday papers. This is a major blown opportunity. Can you imagine what might have been had the Zucker brothers with Jim Abrahams had followed up "Airplane" with their take on mad slasher films? A classic that was not to be.

Gable and Lombard (1976)

A fictional story about real people

[2/10 · 29 June 2006]

"Gable and Lombard" made me angry as I watched it. You see I made a mistake of reading a book based on their life together and what amazed me was how inaccurate the movie is. Allow me to point out just a few of the MANY facts that are wrong with the movie.

1) The film opens with Gable at the plane crash site which has taken the life of Miss Lombard. He wears an Army uniform when in real life he didn't join until later.

2) At the crash site he is comforted by Lombard's press agent when in reality the press agent was killed in the crash as well.

3) The movie makes it appear that they kept their love life secret when in real life they often appeared together in public and made no secret of it.

4) In real life Gable and Lombard had worked together years before their affair started. The movie has them meeting and falling in love almost immediately.

5) The film over emphasizes Lombard's popularity.

Ah but who cares right? Most people don't know the real story and probably don't care. What you want to know is if the movie is any good. I imagine many people will probably enjoy this film but it's nothing more then a silly Hollywood romance that just happened to involve one of the biggest movie stars of the day. Frankly I was so distracted by the common factual errors it would have been impossible for me to enjoy. Let's face it when you watch a story involving real people you imagine that most if not all of what you are seeing either really happened or is a close representation thereof. To watch this movie is to see a screenwriter's fictional invention with real people. In other words I found it to be a scam.

As for the performances James Brolin is essentially imitating Gable from the "Gone With the Wind" era. He would have been more effective had he just made the character his own. He somewhat resembles Gable so we don't need the voice imitation. Jill Clayburgh comes off slightly better simply because she is given less to do.

"Gable and Lombard" may be a nice fictional movie but they should have changed the names and made the characters unknown. The ghosts of the real actors and their true stories linger from frame one.

Blue Collar (1978)

Powerhouse Drama

[10/10 · 27 May 2006]

"Blue Collar" is a simple story masterfully told by co-writer/director Paul Schrader. This dramatic tale tells the story of 3 union auto workers tired of the constant screwing they get from their union. Each man is a hard worker with troubles outside of work to deal with.

Richard Pryor, in easily his best performance, plays a man in trouble with the IRS. He's been claiming more dependents on his taxes then actual kids he really has and now they have caught up to him. At work he has a defective locker that continually cuts his hand when he fights with it. One of the key scenes in the movie is when he goes to his union president who fakes a phone call to the union rep about getting the locker fixed. The message is clear: The union could care less about its workers.

Harvey Keitel is a man with his own problems. His daughter is in such need of braces which he can't afford, one day she tries to put some metal in her mouth herself. And Yaphet Kotto, in a performance that should have merited Oscar consideration, plays a streetwise bad-ass who lives check to check spending money on booze, drugs and women.

One day the three men decide to rob the union safe but end up getting hold of some important information that, if made public, could bring the union down. Soon union thugs and the FBI will become involved. That's as far as I will go with the plot. One of the joys is watching the plot unfold as these three men realize they have gotten in WAY over their heads with something that seemed so simple to begin with. Credit again must fall to director Schrader for keeping things moving and showing a realistic way of life as an auto worker. Every time we are in the plant Schrader blasts the soundtrack with pulsating music. Each man's home life is realistically depicted and the ultimate fate of each man is real and totally believable.

I only have one quibble with this superb but sadly overlooked classic. The final shot is a bit heavy handed and much too abrupt. The film should and could have gone on another ten minutes. Endings seem to be Schrader's Achilles heel as he has the same problem with his equally superb and powerful "Hardcore" which was made the next year. It's ending is much too abrupt and totally unsatisfying as well. But that aside, "Blue Collar" is a film to be seen. Pryor is magnificent in his first major leading dramatic role. I wish he had done more of a mix of comedic and dramatic performances throughout his career because, as proved here, he was certainly up to the task. Keitel and Kotto are equally as fine as Pryor. A great film that deserves to be seen.

The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother (1975)

Mel Brooks where art thou?

[5/10 · 27 May 2006]

Gene Wilder became the first (soon to be followed by Marty Feldman and Dom DeLuise) to jump into the director's chair after successful collaborations with Mel Brooks. His debut as writer/director is "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother" which is a hit and miss comedy with more misses then hits.

The idea is interesting enough with the great detective having a younger, jealous brother. Sigi (Wilder) refers to his famous older brother as Sheer-luck and it's a classic moment that makes one yearn for more throughout. Wilder certainly borrows enough from Brooks (characters break out in song unexpectedly; modern items pop up in this period piece) but he strains to get the laughs. Marty Feldman is amusing as Sigi's sidekick but Madeline Kahn is wasted as the heroine.

The other major flaw is the story itself. The mystery isn't much of one in the first place so we never really get caught up in it. Wilder relies too much on the sight gags to sustain ones interest.

The bottom line is Wilder has made a lesser Mel Brooks film when he should have brought Brooks on board and perhaps turned this mediocre comedy into something more. As it is it may be amusing but without Brooks at his side amusing just isn't enough.

Moment by Moment (1978)

Travolta's star fell some after this "Moment"

[3/10 · 2 February 2006]

"Moment By Moment" came out at a perfect in the career of John Travolta. Hot off the huge successes of "Saturday Night Fever" and "Grease" he must have thought he could do no wrong and boy was he ever wrong about that. You don't get much worse then "Moment By Moment" which is a silly love story between an older woman and a young man. A provocative idea you say? Perhaps, but there is nothing provocative about this movie.

Travolta and Lily Tomlin are cast in the leads and we can see right from the start that they have absolutely no chemistry what so ever. That right there would sink any love story. But writer/director Jane Wagner's awful script continues topping (or bottoming) itself with hopeless ideas and ridiculous situations without directly confronting the central issue of the story.

You would think in a movie about an older woman/younger man relationship we might get a reason as to why Travolta (who, get this, plays a beach stud named Strip!)is attracted to older women (particularly someone like Lily Tomlin). How about one small scene where we see him on a date with a girl his own age and he can't relate to her? With that we could understand his desires but here it's just plot device to move things along.

The whole movie runs on empty. Tomlin (who has since come out of the closet and admitted director Wagner is her longtime companion) is hopelessly miscast. She may be older but she sure didn't fit the bill for what a young man looks for in an older woman. They could have put some make-up or seductive clothing on her to try and at least create the illusion of the sexy woman but perhaps Wagner's intent was to show the normal everyday woman. I hate to tell you this Jane but people don't buy it when a normal, everyday woman is seduced by a beach stud named Strip.

"Moment By Moment" has long been forgotten and rightfully so. It's set up is preposterous, dialogue is laughable, and the acting is downright horrible. It's so bad it almost makes "Battlefield Earth" look not so bad. Skip this junk and thank me in the morning.

10 to Midnight (1983)

Bronson and blood

[5/10 · 24 January 2006]

"Ten to Midnight" is an exceedingly well made thriller that blows it. The problems are many but let's get the basic story out of the way first.

Charles Bronson stars as a hardened cop (how original) with a new rookie partner (Andrew Stevens) out to track a serial killer. The killer finds people, strips naked and then does his deeds in bloody detail. Bronson is convinced he knows who the killer is, plants evidence against him, and when the deed is discovered the killer is released and, well, you just know Bronson's daughter (Lisa Eilbacher) had better watch out.

Of the MANY problems I have with the film here are some I couldn't overcome. Director J.Lee Thompson makes a mistake after the first set of brutal killings. As Hitchcock believed you hit the audience hard with an act of brutal violence so the audience is on edge the rest of the film. You don't need to show anything more because the minds of the audience will imagine things far worse. Thompson does not adhere to this. With each scene of a murder the violence gets more brutal. There is no reason for having to see a girl stabbed in the shower after having seen similar acts of violence earlier. One other bit that always bothered me. One of the early victims is a child to a friend of Bronson's. Bronson has the thankless task of going to tell the friend their daughter is dead. We see him walk up to the house and go in but then director Thompson cuts away to Bronson walking out. Why? We should see this as it gives Bronson motivation for his actions later on. If it was an editing decision it was a terrible one.

Another problem I had is the performance of Gene Davis as the killer. This is, far and away, the worst in the film and it undermines the power of the character. Davis spends most of the movie yelling and when he isn't he is as wooden as a two by four. It's hard to believe he is as clever as he was written.

Lastly, I have to describe the ludicrous final chase. Bronson has discovered the killer is after his daughter. He races to her dorm room to discover that she is gone and the killer has her. They cut to the killer and the daughter who have at least a five minute head start but sure enough Bronson, on foot, not only catches up but has gotten ahead of them. Try to hold a straight face folks because I saw it and I still don't believe it.

"10 To Midnight" had a lot of potential but the director ended up going for the gore which, I imagine, is what he thought the core audience wanted. The script is not badly written but could have used another trip through the typewriter. It's a typical Bronson thriller when it should have been so much more.

Lastly, does anyone know what the title means? It's certainly not the time of night when the killer strikes (at least not in every case). Just wondering.

Telefon (1977)

A good Bronson thriller

[7/10 · 24 January 2006]

I was never a big Charles Bronson fan. His movies usually followed the same predictable patterns of revenge and violence with Bronson usually coming off dry and stiff. His performances were usually always one note.

Of the few films of his I have enjoyed (see also "The Mechanic" and "Hard Times") from that era, "Telefon is a surprisingly gripping thriller even though the story is downright silly at times. Bronson plays (and doesn't even begin to resemble) a KGB agent out to track a killer who have been brainwashed. One call from this guy and the reciting of some lines from a Frost poem and that person is hypnotized into going out and committing an act of violence that resembles terrorism in many cases. Donald Pleasance convincingly plays the bad guy and that, I think, is what makes the movie work. Pleasance is credible in the role, thus we fear him and route for Bronson to catch him. Also on hand is Lee Remick as an American agent assigned to help Bronson but who also has a hidden agenda of her own.

Director Don Seigel handles the silly material in a straightforward manner never taking things too seriously. Bronson is less stiff then usual and the action scenes are well done. The ending is a bit abrupt but that is minor nit picking. It's a silly thriller I enjoyed and, if you are a Bronson fan, I am sure you will enjoy it too.

Eyes of Laura Mars (1978)

A gory, sick geek show of a movie

[3/10 · 24 January 2006]

"Eyes of Laura Mars" is a disturbingly violent geek show of a movie. Laura is a kinky fashion photographer who starts getting visions of brutal, violent murders as they occur. So when she sees them we get to see them to through the eyes of the killer. Instead of the old Hitchcock standby of making the first murder violent and then keeping the audience on edge the rest of the film without showing much of anything, this films murders get worse and worse. It's disgusting without being the least bit stylish.

Faye Dunaway makes her first film appearance after winning the Oscar for Network here and for the life of me I cannot figure out why she would have taken the part on. Perhaps the original spec script called "Eyes" by John Carpenter was something other then this. Or, and most likely this is the case, she got a huge payday as Oscar winners do and took the money and ran. She looks great but the character is one dimensional and she gapes and gasps and cries a lot. At some point you just want someone to slug her.

The supporting cast is headed by Tommy Lee Jones as the lead detective on the murder cases. Jones is passable but his character is dumb. He makes decisions that a good detective wouldn't make. Brad Dourif began his string of eccentric characters as one of Laura's assistants. Gee do you think he will be a suspect in the murders? As far as the "mystery" goes there really isn't much of one. If you pay any attention to the film the identity of the killer is easy to figure out within the first 30 minutes of the movie. Unfortunately we then have to sit through another 60 minutes of blood, gore and violence waiting to get to its predictable conclusion. "Eyes of Laura Mars" is not a pretty film to watch.

The Betsy (1978)

Watchable trash but trash nonetheless

[5/10 · 24 January 2006]

I have always been curious as to how so many big name stars came to agree to appear in "The Betsy". Was Harold Robbins' name alone enough for them to believe they were starring in a hit? Perhaps they all were paid handsomely. I hope it's the latter. As you might expect with Harold Robbins' name on the title "The Betsy" is about sex and greed and sex and power and sex and murder and sex. This is pure trash all the way but if you don't take it seriously and catch yourself in a goofy mood then you might enjoy it.

The story is simple. A family headed by patriarch Laurence Olivier manufacture cars and become wealthy and powerful. That's all you really need to know. This family is one sick group. Take for example one scene early on in the movie. A boy (who would grow up to be Robert Duvall) witnesses his father committing suicide. He runs upstairs to be with his mom (Katherine Ross) only to find her in bed shagging grandpa Olivier. All in a matter of moments for this poor kid. And yet he still grows up and goes to work for Olivier. You can't take the story seriously for a second.

Also on hand are Tommy Lee Jones as a stud race car driver and the beautiful Lesley-Anne Down as his mistress who happens to be Duvall's wife. She is sexy and alluring and almost worth the price of admission. And then there is Duvall's granddaughter who seduces Jones on her 18th birthday. The Carrington family from "Dynasty" almost seem normal next to this clan.

Trash movie lovers unite. This is a film for you. It's somewhat of a guilty pleasure for me but I still sit there and shake my head at many scenes more then just enjoying the garbage being presented.

The Jazz Singer (1980)

I Hef No Son

[4/10 · 24 January 2006]

"The Jazz Singer" was a bomb dropped on the movie world at Christmas in 1980. It's a needless remake to an original movie that has already been remade and wasn't that great in the first place. Had it not been the first movie with sound I don't think many people would remember it.

The storyline has been updated so the cantor's son is now off to the music field, particularly rock. Now I ask you if you could get an actor to star in your big Christmas movie which is a remake of a famous film, would Neil Diamond head the list? Or perhaps every actor with a brain read the script and turned it down. Let's face it folks - Diamond is a terrible actor. Yes he has a great voice and the songs are the only worthy thing in it. You know things are going to go all wrong from the first scene when Diamond dons black face. Was this an ode to the Al Jolson scene from the original or a stupid, misplaced piece of humor? Either way the scene goes terribly wrong and you end up feeling uncomfortable watching it.

The great Laurence Olivier reached a career low as the role of Diamond's distressed father. As he did in "Marathon Man" and "Dracula" and "The Boys From Brazil" Olivier over emphasizes a bad accent and spends most of his time yelling. When he cries "I Hef No Son" the result is unintended laughter. It's a bad performance by a great actor. Surprisingly it is Lucie Arnaz (Desi and Lucy's daughter) who gives the one good performance as Diamond's tough but tortured love interest.

My suggestion to those Neil Diamond fans is to buy the soundtrack and forget the movie. It's silly and stupid and not worth a minute of your time. It was a bomb for a reason.

Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid (1982)

Clever ideas to start but wears thin as it goes

[6/10 · 12 January 2006]

There is a lot to admire about "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" in which Steve Martin and director Carl Reiner collaborated for the second of four films. Reiner has weaved together an original script with the plots of many classic noir/gangster/mystery films of the 40's and 50's. To add to the atmosphere Reiner wisely shot this movie in black and white and it retains that noirish feeling. What Reiner didn't count on was the paper thin plot running out of steam before the third act. By that time we have long given up on the present mystery and sit back to watch and enjoy seeing the great stars of the 40's on the big screen one more time.

I can only imagine the hours and hours it must have taken Reiner, Martin et al to find the right moments from other films to add to this film. For the most part Reiner matches perfectly between his film and the old ones save for the obvious age in the older prints which can't be helped. By the end I had the reverse effect of what I think Reiner intended. I was becoming nostalgic for the great actors of the past and wishing I could see those movies while not keeping up with the story for "Plaid". Of course had the story been a stronger one or if the film on the whole were funnier I would have cared more about "Plaid" then I do.

I don't mean to sound so negative because there are things to enjoy besides the old classic clips. Martin does a good job as the private eye and Rachel Ward is perfectly cast as the femme fatale. I wish they had done more with her character. The mystery, at first, is interesting but it quickly loses track thus, loses the audience. And by the time Reiner appears as a Nazi all hope is thrown out the window.

This is a mixed review for "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid". It's not one of Martin's best or worst but falls right in between. It has its moments but ten minutes after it's over the only thing you'll remember is the clips from the classics. I don't think Reiner intended that.

Hardcore (1979)

A overlooked powerhouse of a drama.

[10/10 · 4 January 2006]

Paul Schrader's powerful "Hardcore" tells the story of a religious man sent into the world of pornography after his teenage daughter disappears on a retreat. George C. Scott gives one of his best performances as the religious man forced to confront worlds he never knew existed in order to protect the daughter he loves.

Scott runs a furniture business in Michigan when he receives word of his daughter's disappearance in California. He hires seedy private eye Peter Boyle who tracks the daughter down in a porno film you would find in peep shows that were popular back then. Scott decides to infiltrate the world of porn posing as a director and getting the aid of a prostitute (beautifully played by Season Hubley).

Scott's and Hubley's worlds are as far apart as can be but Hubley observes that perhaps they have more in common then first believed. "You don't care about sex so you don't do it. I don't care about sex so I don't care who I do it with". Two empty lives come together. It's a beautifully written scene well played by two terrific actors.

The film's only real flaw is its ending. Much like Schrader's "Blue Collar" it ends abruptly before we're ready. We want more answers then we get. The answers to the questions we get are out of left field and nothing before has prepared us for the explanations we get. And then the movie is over. I read that both Scott and Schrader objected to the ending but Columbia had final say. Too bad studios don't trust their talent more.

When a Stranger Calls (1979)

Starts with a bang then goes down with a whimper

[4/10 · 4 January 2006]

Director Fred Walton knows how to grab an audience. The first 15 minutes of "When A Stranger Calls" is powerfully effective as we watch a helpless Carol Kane slowly being terrorized by a series of strange phone calls inquiring as to whether or not she has "checked the children". There is a neat twist which I am sure everyone knows anyway but I won't reveal it here. Sadly, the preview of the film (much like the preview for the upcoming remake) gives away the big surprise.

After the slam bang opening the film grounds to a dead halt as babysitter Kane tries to get on with her life while detective Charles Durning tries tracking down the killer. The next hour is filled with tedious scenes as we get needless character development when what we want is to be scared. The final sequence does provide one really good jolt which is quite unexpected but you may have already fallen asleep by then.

As I said director Walton knows how to grab an audience. When he made the sequel "When A Stranger Calls Back" some 14 years later he had another superb opening sequence (even better then the original's) before it fell apart the rest of the way. If only he could find a way to hold on to his audience with the full grip he applies at the beginning of his films.

French Connection II (1975)

Popeye is back but he bores til the end

[6/10 · 3 January 2006]

"French Connection II" makes a huge mistake right away by taking Popeye Doyle out of his native New York and placing him in France. In New York Popeye was king of the streets. Remember that terrific scene in the original when Popeye walked into the bar loaded with African Americans and took total control? Alas there is none of that to be found in this sequel which, like most sequels, is totally unnecessary. Popeye acts like a goofy tourist while in France even down to wearing a silly hat. Where is the Popeye we know and love? He IS alive and well and when that Popeye shows up the screen comes to life. Unfortunately the film gets bogged down in a slow moving middle act which has Popeye captured and slowly turned into a heroin addict. And when I say slowly I mean slowly. It takes forever for this portion of the picture to conclude as it says the same thing over and over. Our interest in Hackman and the character keep us watching but it gets old fast. The conclusion, however, is a knockout as Hackman begins a foot chase to capture the elusive Frenchman. This scene alone is worth the time with a final shot that is terrific. Hopefully you will have stayed with this long, sometimes tedious film to get to that point.

The Best of Times (1986)

The worst of times

[3/10 · 28 December 2005]

I think "The Best of Times" was a lost cause from the get go. The initial premise (guy drops the winning touchdown pass against a rival high school team, can never seem to get over it and then tries to reunite the two teams to play again) is one of the dumbest I have ever heard. Since Ron Shelton went on to write much better sports films I wonder if there was more to it then that. I hope this film wasn't green lit with Shelton pitching the story as I wrote above.

So we have the premise. Going from there you would think, or hope, that there might be a few twists along the way to keep things lively. No such luck. This script follows every predictable cliché you can think of. There isn't a moment in this film you won't see coming a mile away before the film reveals it and the ending.... well if you can't figure out the ending by the end of the first reel then you haven't paid attention or seen any other sports movie in your life.

Robin Williams and Kurt Russell star (and bore) in the leads. Williams is the poor schmo who dropped the big pass and Russell is the quarterback who threw the fateful pass. Gee, do you think Russell will suit up just once more to see if he and Williams can right a wrong that the town has never forgotten? This is such a lame duck comedy with a lame duck script that one can only shake their heads wondering what might have been. Sure there are a few chuckles and, to be honest, there is one truly funny scene. Williams and Russell have marital problems and the wives invite them over for dinner to resolve things. Neither guy realizes that they have been invited over on a Monday and, yes, Monday Night Football is on. Keeping in mind that the two teams playing have a combined one victory, the men (Williams especially) try to resist the temptation to find out how the game is going. The scene dissolves into some hilarious bits as Williams goes to check the score by using a bathroom visit as a ruse. When he returns he coughs the score to Russell. Later as Russell is starting to make the moves on his wife Williams wheels the television into their view from another room.

It's an inspired and funny scene in a mostly uninspired and stupid movie.

The Survivors (1983)

A muddled mess that can't be saved

[4/10 · 28 December 2005]

It seems that many people have enjoyed "The Survivors" and as a huge Walter Matthau fan I sure wanted to be one of them. "The Survivors" is a muddled mess with script problems and, most curiously, problems with the casting of its leading actors Matthau and Robin Williams. Just reading that would make you thing that the casting is inspired but it ends up working against the film. Matthau and Williams have two very distinctive styles of comedy that work against each other and that aspect is clear throughout the movie. These two appear to be starring in different movies even when they are on screen together. Director Michael Ritchie appears to have let Williams and his manic sense of humor go crazy with no attempt to reel him in to a calmer level more suitable for the film. Take a look at "The World According to Garp" where Williams worked with the great George Roy Hill to see a restrained and terrific performance. Sure some of Williams' manic comedy sneaks through there but it was at a minimum. Here Williams is all over the map which is surprising considering director Ritchie's track record of only good movies up to this point ("The Candidate", "Smile" and "The Bad News Bears" among others).

Another problem with the film is the tone of the script. It wants to be satirical, farcical, and dark all at the same time. Had it stuck with just one of those tones we might have had a better movie. Perhaps a satirical look at the difficulties of big business which is suggested in a funny opening scene when Williams is fired by his boss' parrot. Or perhaps a dark comedy about two down on their luck guys who happen across a hit man, trying to stay alive or even perhaps hoping to be killed, as they get their lives in some sort of order. This is hinted at but the story falls flat with the casting of Jerry Reed as the hit man who turns out to be a likable guy. Reed never convinced me he was anything more then the Snowman with a gun waiting for Burt Reynolds. He always seems to be winking at himself and never comes off as menacing. And the last act of the film at the survivalist outing is so mundane and silly it doesn't even belong in this film.

"The Survivors" could have been a really special film had director Ritchie reigned in and restrained Williams some and having the script go through major overhauls instead of looking like they shot a first draft. As it now stands there are a few laughs and it's not a total waste of time but will be a huge disappointment to fans of the lead actors.

Earthquake (1974)

Sensurround was the star

[5/10 · 16 June 2005]

"Earthquake" is another of the many 1970's disaster films that seemed to hit theaters and drive-ins on a bi-weekly basis. The one difference between this film and all the others was Sensurround, which consisted of 4 large boxes positioning 2 on either side of the screen and 2 more on either side in the very back. Every time a quake hit the machines would rumble causing the theater to shake. In Chicago there were reports that the United Artists theater, one of the many long gone and forgotten movie palaces, actually had parts of the ceiling fall during performances which, no doubt, made it all the more real for the patrons. The results were quite effective and almost made the movie worth seeing. To sit and watch it on television is to see yet another silly disaster movie that had some decent special effects.

"Earthquake" boasted the usual star studded cast headed by Charlton Heston and George Kennedy who did double duty that fall by also saving lives in "Airport 1975." Also along for the ride are Genevieve Bujold, Ava Gardner, Lorne Greene (hilariously cast as Gardner's father of all people, Marjoe Gortner, Richard Roundtree, Barry Sullivan, Lloyd Nolan and others. Of course the film has to set up these characters and their individual (and mostly boring) stories before we get to the good stuff. When the big quake does hit the film takes off for a while but then grinds to a halt as the survivors look for one another and try to stay alive. It's a routine film that is an okay time waster but nothing more.

The Formula (1980)

A confusing mess

[4/10 · 14 June 2005]

"The Formula" is a mess of a movie. It's a mystery/thriller in which the mystery is almost impossible to follow and the thrills are few and far between. The plot becomes confusing almost from the start and never turns itself around. Ones only reason to watch this movie would be to see two of our greatest actors, Marlon Brando and George C.Scott, performing together. Sadly even that falls short as they only have two scenes together, albeit these are the two best scenes in the movie. Brando's speech about the oil companies is terrific. Too bad the rest of the film didn't live up to that scene.

I can remember that just prior to the opening of the film at Christmas of 1980 it became public knowledge that the studio (with the backing of writer Steve Shagan) took the film away from director John Avildsen. Shagan wanted many changes made so Avildsen sent a long memo to the studio outlining Shagan's apparent wrong decisions with the editing. The studio seemed to agree - somewhat. Some of Avildsen's suggestions were restored while others weren't. Thankfully the Brando speech that I mentioned above was not cut per Shagan's request. Avildsen believed that because Brando basically improvised the scene Shagan was not happy with it.

Come to think of it I think I would have rather seen a movie based on the internal battles of the studio/writer and the director then this mess. Whomever is to blame, and it's probably 50-50, "The Formula" is a major disappointment considering all the talent involved.

The Changeling (1980)

Chilling ghost story

[9/10 · 14 June 2005]

"The Changeling" tells the story of a composer (George C. Scott) who, as the film opens, loses his wife and daughter in a tragic accident. Getting away from it all, Scott buys an old home to get his mind right and to get back to doing the work he loves. Soon he discovers that his house is haunted and filled with secrets waiting to be revealed. To say much more then that would be unfair to the first time viewer.

Suffice to say this is a chilling film with several good scares that aren't achieved by manipulating the audience. By that I mean loud chords of music on the soundtrack or the unexpected cry of a cat or something like that. "The Changeling" works for its scares and succeeds. Another big reason the film is so well done is the performance by Scott. For a change the hero in a ghost story is not a wimp but a strong, self assured man who is going to fight to the bitter end to find the truth and get his life back. Very few actors could have pulled it off better then Scott.

The supporting cast is headed by Melvyn Douglas (in one of his last roles) and Scott's wife, Trish Van Devere who projects a look of total terror as well as anyone I have seen.

Two moments that stand out are the séance scene which is eerie and the unexpected arrival of a child's toy ball. This film will give you shivers. If you are a fan check it out and make sure to watch it with a loved one cuddling up against you with all the lights turned out.

Grizzly (1976)

Let the "Jaws" rip-offs begin

[3/10 · 27 May 2005]

"Grizzly" was the first of the "Jaws" ripoffs coming along not even a year after the classic film. It's basically the same story told in a forest preserve. Giant killer bear terrorizes campers, greedy politicians don't want to close up, three men go on the hunt. Does this all sound familiar? The makers of "Grizzly" weren't subtle when it came to "borrowing" ideas.

The three leads are played to various digress of competence by Christopher George, Andrew Prine, and Richard Jaekal. George more or less walks the same steps Roy Scheider did in "Jaws". Prine is a sarcastic bear hunter doing his best not to remind us how much better Richard Dreyfuss was. Jaekal is the bear expert and Robert Shaw he definitely isn't.

The biggest problem is the bear itself. A real grizzly was used but obviously he is not as big as the film presents him to be. Director William Girdler tries to use camera trickery to fool the audience. One scene involving the bear tearing down an old tower is indicative of the problem. We see how flimsy the tower is instead of being awed by the power of a giant bear. And the ending, while silly, makes you wonder how the characters didn't think of it an hour earlier. It's a dumb film.

Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983)

Hit and Miss

[7/10 · 26 May 2005]

As is the case with movie anthologies, "Twilight Zone - The Movie" is hit and miss. If there was a movie destined to have four short stories that were all home runs it was this one. But the film falls short partially due to the expectations of the fans of the TV show and partially due to the fans expectations of the results of the four directors. What was most interesting back in 1983 was which ones hit and which ones missed.

The prologue gets things going in the right direction with Albert Brooks and Dan Aykroyd as two guys traveling down a dark and seemingly lonely road. What transpires in pure Twilight Zone. Then we move into the first story which is directed by (as was the opening prologue) John Landis. Landis, who got the whole project off the ground, foolishly decided to go with an original story instead of updating a classic episode. His story is that of a bigot who constantly and bitterly complains about the minorities who are getting job promotions and moving into his neighborhood. Of course the bigot then gets a real taste of what it feels like to be frowned upon as a minority. Basically that is the whole story in a nutshell. Landis provides no real twists to his story to give us that Twilight Zone flavor after the first few minutes. Once we see where the story is headed it never changes directions. For film buffs Landis adds a nice touch with a subtle reference to his classic "Animal House" in the Vietnam section of the story. Of course it should be noted that this was the story being shot when Vic Morrow and two children were tragically killed which would explain its abrupt ending. The two children are never seen which would suggest perhaps Landis had more to tell but we'll never know. Of the four this is the weakest story.

Story two is not much better then the first which is particularly surprising since Steven Spielberg is at the helm for this one. It's a remake of "Kick the Can" which was not one of my favorite episodes from the series and Spielberg adds nothing to his version. It's the tale of residents of an old folks home who encounter a new resident who promises them something no one of this Earth could possibly give them. While the story and individual moments are very sweet it goes absolutely nowhere. Having just come off "E.T." perhaps Spielberg was in that same gushy mood at that time.

Story three picks things up drastically and heads us in the right direction. Directed by Joe Dante who, at that time, was best known for "The Howling" with films such as "Gremlins" still in his future, this is the story of a little boy who hears people's thoughts and has a way of "wishing people away" if he gets angry enough at them. Kathleen Quinlan plays an unsuspecting traveler who goes to the boy's home and realizes almost immediately things are not normal. The star of this story is the art direction and sets as we are transformed into almost cartoon like worlds that are both funny and frightening.

The last and best story is the tale of a frightened airline passenger (well played by John Lithgow) who threatens the safety of everyone when he seems to be the only person that sees a creature on the wing of the airplane. George Miller, best known for the "Mad Max" movies, was smart enough to pick a popular episode from the series and he delivers with a bang. When you leave the theater this is the story you remember most.

On the whole the film is worth watching especially after the first 45 minutes. Landis and Spielberg perhaps were a little too high on their horses and thought whatever they did would work. Apparently they under estimated the legions of Zone fans. I'd love to see someone try another Twilight Zone movie someday and try re-working some of the other most famous episodes. I should also mention the terrific musical score by Jerry Goldsmith. Its one of his least mentioned but I think it's one of his best.

The Amityville Horror (2005)

And I thought remakes of bad movies was a good idea

[2/10 · 18 April 2005]

I have always been a strong believer that Hollywood should stop remaking the good movies and remake the bad ones. Take a long, close look at what went wrong and attempt to make it right. After seeing the dismal remake of "The Amityville Horror" I think perhaps I need to rethink my stance.

I am not a big fan of the original film. I always found it more silly then scary and never could figure out why a family would wait 28 days of going through everything they went through before fleeing. This version doesn't do anything to clear that up. For that matter this version does very little.

The new version seems less like the original and somewhat more like a ripoff of "The Shining." We just watch and watch as the father (here it's Ryan Reynolds as George Lutz playing way over his head) goes crazier in each scene. There is no character development whatsoever. The family moves in and he starts changing. It all happens so fast we have no time to care about him or the other members of the family. At a brief 87 minute running time it appears the director cared more about shocks then his characters.

Speaking of the directing, it's been a long time since I have seen such sloppy direction in a major movie. The director wants to make his audience jump every few minutes but cheats in how he achieves (or attempts to) this. Whenever he wants a scare he simply has a chord of music blare on the soundtrack unexpectedly. Or a loud noise jolts through the theater speakers. I have an idea. Why not create a situation and achieve the scares through that. I detest when an audience is manipulated by a filmmaker. And I have never felt more manipulated in a movie then this one.

Now let's speak of the script. There are several changes from this version to the original. I have no problem with that as long as they make sense to the story or add to the fear level. How about a scene where the priest comes to bless the house and the wife has to chase him to his car? That's right. The priest is literally running for his life to get to his car. Do you think maybe the wife might get the idea something is very wrong and get her kids the heck out of there no matter what her husband says? Phillip Baker Hall as the priest looks like he just wants his paycheck so he can move on to a better project.

As it stands this new "Amityville Horror" may be the worst in the bunch of "Amityville" movies from the 80's. It's hard to imagine anything worse then "Amityville 2:The Possession" but this just might be it. And the third film at least had some good 3-D effects. What worries me most is that this film will spawn remakes of the bad originals and, God forbid, make them even worse.

As I said at the top maybe I need to rethink my position that only bad movies should be remade to try and improve upon them. After seeing "The Amityville Horror" perhaps remakes should be abolished altogether.

Sky Riders (1976)

Typical 70's B Movie

[5/10 · 4 April 2005]

"Skyriders" is a typical action film from the 70's that opened and closed within two weeks and your local theater and drive-in. It contains a few name stars (James Colburn, Robert Culp) but let's face it the action is supposed to be the star. On that score the film is not bad. The problem is it takes much too long to get to the action.

Colburn stars as a pilot whose ex-wife and child (along with another child fathered by Culp) are kidnapped by mercenaries for ransom. While Culp works on raising the money and cooperating with authorities, Coburn hires a band of expert gliders to aid in a rescue. All of this could have been told in a clean quick manner but it takes forever to get to the rescue. We even have a silly montage of the skydivers training Colburn. Not necessary. We want the action! Contrary to the first comment the skyrider scenes are not too dark even though the desired effect is for it to night time. Actually I think it was shot during the day and a dark filter superimposed on the film to make it look like night. If you look closely at the rocks you can see the shadows of the gliders. I never saw such pronounced shadows at night.

The gliding scenes are well done and thrilling up to a point. My biggest problem is that the escape plan seems all too easy seeing where the kidnappers are located. Of course it's not all done without a hitch but there are no real twists to keep things exciting. The last part of the film becomes a standard shoot em up film that you have scene hundreds of times before.

The film is mediocre at best. The good talent is pretty much wasted in an action film with not enough action or a smart script.

Two-Minute Warning (1976)

You have been "Warned"

[2/10 · 9 March 2005]

Make no mistake about it. "Two Minute Warning" is a dumb film with a big cast of actors who either should have known better or needed the money.

The... ahem.... "story" is well known. A sniper in a football stadium on Championship Game Day. That's it. We get introduced to the characters (gambler, father, pickpocket, etc) and then wait to see which of them will be killed. Director Larry Peerce uses the sickening transition device of re-introducing his characters by showing them in the scope of the sniper's rifle. Wouldn't you think with 91,000 people in the stadium he might set his sights on more then the half dozen supporting actors? It's cheap and contrived.

Let's talk a little about the sniper. We never find out anything about him or his motives. Why does he kill the bicyclist at the beginning? Perhaps as target practice before the big game? Your guess is as good as mine. And why does he pick the championship game to go to? Your explanation would be as believable as mine since the filmmakers choose not to tell us (well they do hint that the President is going to attend but that plot point is quickly forgotten). And why does he wait until the two minute warning to open fire when he has been ready and waiting for hours beforehand? Because of the contrivance of the script. How else could they introduce Charlton Heston as the police captain and John Cassavettes(?) as a S.W.A.T. commander? (Incidentally I hope Cassavettes used his salary to help finance one of his own films).

The whole movie is ridiculous. Basically we sit and wait to see who will live and who will die. As other astute viewers have mentioned in their reviews the dialogue is equally as bad as the story and acting. My favorite moments is near the end when Heston is talking to a wounded Cassavettes and suggests he go to the hospital. Cassavettes (despite bleeding from the arm from a gunshot wound) claims he is OK to which Heston responds "Come on. Don't be a hero."

Funny Farm (1988)

Chevy's Best Film

[10/10 · 22 February 2005]

I realize that comedy is subjective and things that I think are funny others may not think is too funny. But I am dumbstruck at some of the negative reviews for "Funny Farm." Far and away this is Chevy's best film. I think the screenplay is beautifully written with so many small touches of humor hidden within a scene that to list them would take forever. I will agree that the last act takes a bit of a wide turn in reality but it doesn't stray so far that the film goes off track.

The main story is your typical fish out of water story but what person can't identify with Chase's Andy Farmer in one way or another? Of course the film takes it to the extreme and it's all the funnier for it. And the characters are a biting reminder that not everyone is normal or sane for that matter. The waitress who serves lamb fries without explaining what that really is until it is desperately too late. The sheriff who has to take a cab because he flunked his driver's test. The mailman who throws the mail to the road because he is drunk by the time he reaches the Farmer's residence.

And the small touches? How about the dog that runs away from home just after being brought home for the first time? Or the umpire whose strike zone is a bit wide. The odd fate of Claude Musselman? And let's not forget the phone operator who can tell the sound of two pennies being dropped in a jar but fails to realize it's not a pay phone Chase is calling from? I laughed hard and often which is something odd for me in any film with Chevy Chase. In all the years with all of his films I can honestly say I have only enjoyed five of them (Foul Play, Vacation, Fletch, Christmas Vacation and this one. That's right I am not a fan of Caddyshack)and this is his best.

One more small moment sums up the film's humor for me. Chase is fishing with some men he has just met. One of them men gets a hook stuck in his neck. Instead of trying to pull it out Chase thinks it easier to knock the man out so THEN they can pull the hook out. After punching the man three times in the face one of the other men finally steps in and says "You're not knocking him out, you're only beating the p*ss out of him."